Majority Statement

• Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV
  Read statement

  Majority Statement

  Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV

  Good afternoon and thank you all for joining me to discuss an issue I’ve been working on my entire career – first as a college president, then as a Governor, and, of course, in the Senate and as a Member of this Committee.  

  There can be absolutely no question that investing in science and technology, in innovation, and in educating our young people is critical to maintaining our nation’s global leadership.  

  We should all be grateful that our country’s leaders have had the wisdom and the patience to make these investments, because they make a real difference in people’s lives.  These investments don’t change things overnight, but over time, they are game-changers.      

  Funding for agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) doesn’t just mean another scientist in a lab somewhere.  

  The money that we put into basic research, into understanding the world around us, has a real world impact.  It creates new ways – 

  • To protect our loved ones, by better identifying dangerous counterfeit drugs; 
  • To secure our homeland, by being able to “smell” even small amounts of explosives; and
  • To interact with the world, by providing seed funding and new technologies for the companies that transformed the Internet, communications, and mobile phones.  

  That is why I have been so happy to support Federal funding for research and development (R&D) and for education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).  

  It is also why I have been a huge champion for the America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010.  

  Over the past few months, I have received some amazing numbers on the impact of programs addressed in COMPETES.

  Back in 2001, I worked on legislation to create the Robert Noyce Teacher Fellowship Program, which was strengthened by the 2007 COMPETES Act.  As of last year, the Noyce scholarship is expected to help produce over 12,000 math and science teachers in high-need districts.  

  In 2010, COMPETES granted every federal agency the authority to award prizes for solutions to difficult problems.  Since then, the web site Challenge.gov has hosted over 200 challenges, with more than 16,000 Americans participating.  

  Ongoing challenges are working to better measure pollution, reduce hospital readmissions, and bring down the cost of solar energy.  

  If the country is going to build on these tremendous results, we must continue to defend scientific research and to make it a priority. Given our Government’s long and successful track record in supporting research and development, I would like to think that it doesn’t need defending. But unfortunately, it does.  

  We know that our science agencies have suffered because of long-term funding reductions, and short-term disruptions like sequestration and the government shutdown. It is very hard to plan long-term research when you can’t even be sure of your budget over the next few months.  

  Also, we’ve seen proposals that would let Congress decide what research projects are worthwhile. Having served on this committee and worked with the Senate Science and Technology Caucus, I know that scientists through grant competitions and peer review are best able to make those decisions.

  On his deathbed in 1969, former President Dwight Eisenhower told a friend that, in his experience, scientists “were one of the few groups in Washington who seemed to be there to help the country and not help themselves.” 

  Our House colleagues who would substitute their own opinions for those of the scientific community would be wise to remember President Eisenhower’s words.  

  Today, I plan to release a draft of my 2014 America COMPETES reauthorization. This bill would make it clear that the United States is committed to leading the world in science and engineering.  That means getting kids excited about STEM, funding a wide-range of research, and making sure that the best research results make it to the marketplace.  

  There are already so many examples of Federally-funded research making our nation and our economy stronger.  That is why I am very glad to see Dr. Vint Cerf here today.  Dr. Cerf played a leading role in the development of a technology that has changed our world – the Internet.   

  As Dr. Cerf can explain, it took several decades of incremental work by scientists and engineers at the Department of Defense, at the National Science Foundation, and at our leading research universities to bring the Internet to the point where companies like Netscape, Yahoo, and Google could pursue their business ideas.

  Our challenge is to make sure that the next Internet is developed in the United States and not in a laboratory in China, India, or Europe.   Unless we choose to support science in this country – and it is a choice – I am afraid that the next world-changing innovation will not belong to us.  That’s why I’d like to invite all of my Senate colleagues to work with me on a 2014 COMPETES reauthorization, to ensure that our country continues to lead.

  Our wonderful panel of witnesses will help us to understand how we can do that.

  ###

Minority Statement

• Ranking Member John R. Thune
  Read statement

  Minority Statement

  Ranking Member John R. Thune

  Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to consider the federal role in scientific research and development, and how best to capitalize on federal investments. 

  I join you in welcoming our witnesses to today’s hearing, which presents us with a good opportunity to discuss the impact of the U.S. R&D enterprise on our economy and our society overall. Among individual countries, the United States is by far the largest investor in public and private R&D, comprising 30 percent of the global R&D total. Past and current budget realities, however, underscore the importance of maximizing our federal investments so we can get the biggest bang for our buck, and should encourage an examination of ways to leverage even more private sector resources to expand the reach of our R&D.

  The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 were designed to set our science and technology R&D priorities, and served as the authorizing vehicles for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under our committee’s jurisdiction, as well as for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science.

  I know you, Mr. Chairman, and former Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison worked together on the America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010, and I look forward to reviewing the legislative proposal you and your staff are developing for discussion, and evaluating opportunities for consensus going forward.

  At some level, there is broad bipartisan consensus that the federal government should play a significant role in promoting scientific research – especially basic research. As Dr. Cerf points out in his testimony, businesses can rarely support sustained, long-term, high-risk research in the same way the government can; this is especially true when the benefits—though potentially large—are diffuse. But, once we get beyond the high-level agreement, the nuts and bolts of federal funding can be challenging. 

  As our colleagues on the House Science Committee have noted, it is not hard to find examples of federally funded research that sound more like the pet projects of eccentric billionaires than matters worthy of limited taxpayer dollars. Plus, even when we accept the scientific merits of R&D, there is no shortage of worthwhile projects with more clear-cut ends that compete with basic research for funding. In this committee, we’ve heard previous testimony about the importance of funding research intended to stimulate advanced manufacturing, improve forensic science, and bolster cybersecurity. All of these are laudatory goals—but some may be best achieved through means other than direct federal spending. For example, I introduced an amendment to the tax extenders legislation in May that would simplify and make permanent the R&D tax credit. This tax credit encourages businesses to continue investing in R&D and promotes jobs and manufacturing throughout the country.  

  In my view, the federal R&D enterprise is at its best when it supports important basic research that is foundational to discovery. For example, in my home state of South Dakota, researchers a mile below the surface at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead have been conducting a world-class experiment to detect dark matter. While the applications of this research are yet to be fully understood, such research contributes to our understanding of how the universe works. I am pleased to note that NSF and DOE recently announced that they have jointly selected a portfolio of projects for the “second generation” of dark matter direct-detection experiments that will include another new experiment housed at SURF.   

  These existing and future dark matter experiments, which present compelling goals and opportunities for U.S. leadership in the physical sciences, include more than 100 collaborators representing 17 universities around the world, including the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and the University of South Dakota, as well as national laboratories in the U.S., U.K., and Portugal.

  Federal support for fundamental research, such as that underway at SURF and at universities across the country, can provide the foundation for many new innovations. These discoveries often provide useful applications far afield from the original research focus. Yet, to help recognize potential applications, a recent National Academy of Sciences report highlighted the need to improve the metrics and measures that track and evaluate these publicly funded research programs and their ultimate impacts on society. 

  Along these lines, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today both about ways to better maximize the benefits of federally-funded research, as well as barriers that are inhibiting innovation. I am also interested to hear about any challenges our witnesses in the private sector and university community have faced in investing in long-term research, as well as the obstacles they’ve confronted in attracting and retaining foreign-born students and workers in STEM fields. I would also like to hear from the witnesses about what policies, beyond direct funding from federal agencies, could help to unlock new sources of R&D from the private sector.

  Thank you all for your participation and taking the time to share your insights with the committee.

Testimony

• Dr. Vinton G. Cerf

  Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google

  Member, National Science Board (NSF)
  Download Testimony (132.69 KB)

• Ms. Mariette DiChristina

  Editor in Chief and Senior Vice President

  Scientific American
  Download Testimony (107.58 KB)

• Dr. Neal F. Lane

  Senior Fellow in Science and Technology Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Malcolm Gillis University Professor and Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University

  Co-Chair, Committee on New Models for U.S. Science and Technology Policy, American Academy of Arts & Sciences
  Download Testimony (477.81 KB)

• Dr. Stephen E. Fienberg

  Maurice Falk University Professor of Statistics and Social Science, Department of Statistics, the Machine Learning Department, the Heinz College, and Cylab

  Carnegie Mellon University
  Download Testimony (261.91 KB)